If you wish to see the type of political claptrap that is being bandied about when it comes to policing in your community, you may wish to review part of President Obama’s Task Force report.
Ask yourself, is this the beginning of the federalization of local police and sheriffs departments? [my comments in bracketed blue italics]
“When any part of the American family does not feel like it is being treated fairly, that’s a problem for all of us.” ~ President Barack Obama
[Of course, as we have seen during the course of the Obama Administration, both President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have made inflammatory statements regarding race and policing. In some cases appearing to support thuggish individuals over duly constituted law enforce without investigations being completed and the facts from being full known. A clear indication of the politicalization of law enforcement activities and further attempts by the Department of Justice to intervene in local law enforcement to apparently promote the Obama agenda of individual and community victimization to drive a progressive socialist democrat agenda.]
Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential in a democracy. It is key to the stability of our communities, the integrity of our criminal justice system, and the safe and effective delivery of policing services.
[If trust between law enforcement is essential, how does the Obama Administration justify its constant agitation and “community outreach” activities at a local level – a level where federal officials should play no role. And, how can members of law enforcement trust the federal government if a grand jury proceedings return a “no true bill” or a court of competent jurisdiction returns a politically unpalatable verdict – and then the federal government investigates and charges a “civil rights” violation? Truly, political double jeopardy based on technicalities.]
At the first session, Building Trust and Legitimacy, the topic of procedural justice was discussed as a foundational necessity in building public trust. Subject matter experts also testified as to the meaning of “community policing policing” in its historical and contemporary contexts, defining the difference between implicit bias and racial discrimination—two concepts at the heart of perceived difficulties between police and the people. Witnesses from community organizations stressed the need for more police involvement in community affairs as an essential component of their crime fighting duties. Police officers gave the beat cop’s perspective on protecting people who do not respect their authority, and three big-city mayors told of endemic budgetary obstacles to addressing policing challenges.
[That minorities in the inner cities do not trust members of law enforcement is understandable within the context of illegal aliens,omni-present criminals, and the suppression of law enforcement assistance by minority gangs who do not appear reluctant to kill or injure those who provide information to law enforcement. Yet, this is rarely the subject of official inquiries. The attitudes of “us” versus”them” are reoccurring themes in political campaigns as politicians have little or no impetus to support law enforcement when their largest constituencies engage in cultural dislike and distrust of law enforcement.
Implicit bias and racial discrimination are political terms, applied by politicians to prove that they and their community’s minority leadership are not complicitly and directly responsible for the behavior of the community’s minority residents. Why, you might ask, are the racial motives of a law enforcement officer questioned when it is white-on-minority law enforcement action and not when minority law enforcement acts upon a minority perpetrator? Could the answer be as simple as: the disparity of color gives rise to benefits that can be exploited by both the defense and politicians running for office?
Real animosity towards the police and racial bias are systemic problems unlikely to be influenced by additional police or additional funding. In fact, tracking the law enforcement money into bloated pension benefits makes incremental changes in law enforcement levels prohibitively expensive. As does union work rules which favor sworn personnel over civilians – although many civilians held security clearances from the federal government.]
0.1 Overarching recommendation: The President should support and provide
funding for the creation of a National Crime and Justice Task Force to review and evaluate all components of the criminal justice system for the purpose of making recommendations to the country on comprehensive criminal justice reform.
[Just what the people need. Another feel-good, do-nothing task force staffed by politically-appointed hacks whose work is performed by “staff.” Usually lawyers with a political bent.
When someone speaks of comprehensive criminal justice reform, they are most likely speaking of law enforcement restrictions against minorities and illegal aliens, the reduction of sentencing for minority criminals, and the expungement of criminal records for minorities. Not that we already do not have a problem will allowing hardened criminals to plea-bargain serious crimes to less serious crimes for the purpose of generating statistics-building conviction records of politically ambitious prosecutors.
Where is the mention of the misconduct of rogue investigators and prosecutors that has resulted in innocent people being sent to prison or even executed?]
0.2 Overarching recommendation: The President should promote programs
that take a comprehensive and inclusive look at community-based initiatives that address the core issues of poverty, education, health, and safety.
[Since the War on Poverty began under President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, billions of dollars have been used to address the so-called core-issues. After decades, crime in the inner cities is rampant and those areas, mostly governed by progressive socialist democrats, remain cesspools of poverty, illiteracy, disease, crime, and general decay. The money being siphoned-off by the ever-expanding government and political special interests.]
1.1 recommendation: Law enforcement culture should embrace a guardian mindset to build public trust and legitimacy. Toward that end, police and sheriffs’ departments should adopt procedural justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices to guide their interactions with the citizens they serve.
[Excuse me! Isn’t that what we are supposed to have, guaranteed by the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. To the extent that this type of policing does not exist, it is the failure of the politicians who govern the system.]
1.2 recommendation: Law enforcement agencies should acknowledge the role of policing in past and present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust.
[Excuse me! How about the minority communities acknowledging their disproportionate criminal activity and the politicians acknowledging their governance failures. There have been failures on both sides of the line. ]
1.3 Recommendation: Law enforcement agencies should establish a culture of
transparency and accountability in order to build public trust and legitimacy. This will help ensure decision making is understood and in accord with stated policy.
[Coming from the Obama Administration, the idea of calling for transparency and accountability in order to build public trust and legitimacy is ludicrous given the public lying about national security, healthcare, and law enforcement activities. Truly a case of don’t do as I do, do as I say.]
-
1.3.1 Action Item: To embrace a culture of transparency, law enforcement agencies should make all department policies available for public review and regularly post on the department’s website information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and other law enforcement data aggregated by demographics.
- 1.3.2 Action Item: When serious incidents occur, including those involving alleged police misconduct, agencies should communicate with citizens and the media swiftly, openly, and neutrally, respecting areas where the law requires confidentiality.
[Until the investigation is complete and presented for review with the prosecutors, silence is preferable. Acknowledgement of the event is necessary and proper, but the details of an ongoing investigation must remain tightly held to protect both the innocent and the integrity of the prosecution. Community agitators should be sanctioned if they incite a riot when the facts are not in the public domain.]
1.4 recommendation: Law enforcement agencies should promote legitimacy internally within the organization by applying the principles of procedural justice.
- 1.4.1 Action Item: In order to achieve internal legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve employees in the process of developing policies and procedures.
- 1.4.2 Action Item: Law enforcement agency leadership should examine opportunities to incorporate procedural justice into the internal discipline
process, placing additional importance on values adherence rather than adherence to rules. Union leadership should be partners in this process.
1.5 recommendation: Law enforcement agencies should proactively promote public trust by initiating positive non-enforcement activities to engage communities that typically have high rates of investigative and enforcement involvement with government agencies.
Witness Laura Murphy, for example, pointed out that when law enforcement targets people of color for the isolated actions of a few, it tags an entire community as lawless when in actuality 95 percent are law abiding.
[This is a specious and general allegation of the type usually put forth by community victimization activists. So who is Laura Murphy? She is the Director, Washington Legislative Office, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).]
- 1.5.1 action item: In order to achieve external legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve the community in the process of developing and evaluating policies and procedures.
[When politicians and activists speak about community involvement, they are usually speaking about themselves, not the unwashed members of the general public.]
Resident Officer Programs are arrangements where law enforcement officers are provided housing in public housing neighborhoods as long as they fulfill public safety duties within the neighborhood that have been agreed to between the housing authority and the law enforcement agency.
[This should be known as the “get an officer killed, put their family in danger, and never give them a moment of peace” plan.]
- 1.5.3 action item: Law enforcement agencies should create opportunities in schools and communities for positive non-enforcement interactions with police. Agencies should also publicize the beneficial outcomes and images of positive, trust-building partnerships and initiatives.
[Funny, we used to do this with police visits to the classroom, Explorer Scouts, and Police involvement in community affairs as our neighbors. As for demonstrating the benefits of low crime – perhaps we should allow the police to do their own perp walks. ]
- 1.5.4 Action Item: Use of physical control equipment and techniques against vulnerable populations—including children, elderly persons, pregnant women, people with physical and mental disabilities, limited English proficiency, and others—can undermine public trust and should be used as a last resort. Law enforcement agencies should carefully consider and review their policies towards these populations and adopt policies if none are in place.
[Just a little reminder that a law enforcement officer can be killed by a child, a senior citizen, or a mentally disabled person. While control techniques are not pretty when observed on the nightly news, to make an officer second-guess their safety is deadly.]
Source: President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015.
“Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.”
Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
|
Well you get the idea. If you wish to read the entire 160-page document in context, it can be found here at the Department of Justice.
Department of Social Justice …
When Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta spoke to the crowd at the Colorado Lawyers Committee annual lunch about the realities of the severed relationship between police and the Black community, she started by listing some of the most sobering reminders of what police brutality and excessive force can really do.
“Mistrust can’t be explained away as the kneejerk reaction of the ill-informed or the hyperbolic,” she said. “It’s, in part, the product of historical awareness about the role that police have played in enforcing and perpetuating slavery, the Black Codes, lynchings and Jim Crow segregation. As FBI Director James Comey noted, ‘At many points in American history, law enforcement enforced the status quo, a status quo that was often brutally unfair to disfavored groups.” <Source>
Can you even begin to imagine why a high-ranking Department of Justice official would start in on historical awareness about the role that police have played in enforcing and perpetuating slavery? If not to stoke the fires of racial discord, victimhood, and progressive socialist democrat ideology. If you want to see where the parrot got her talking points … look at Recommendation 1.2 above.
Pointy-head intellectuals …
The idea that crime and punishment should somehow reflect the percentage population of the perpetrator’s color, race, or ethnicity, without regard to other factors is something only a pointy-head intellectual can support. Most of these prognosticators are progressive socialist democrats who cannot seem to understand that crime is committed by individual criminals and criminal gangs – and is not caused by the broader society. There have always been criminals, but never before have so many wanted to spread the blame to law-abiding citizens.
I don’t own slaves. My family doesn’t own slaves. And, my ancestors didn’t own slaves. So why am I being punished and made to feel inferior because of historical injustice? Can you say political power and wealth redistribution to increase that political power? As we have seen in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, criminals are simply criminals, not historians, nor protesters with a legitimate grievance with a factual basis.
Crime is big business …
The mantra of the criminal justice system is not better policing or lower crime, it is stabilize the system to keep the political power from being eroded and the money flowing into our coffers, and individual pockets.
Most people do not think of the criminal justice system as big business, but when you consider the tremendous amounts of money awash in the system, you will quickly change your mind. Progressive policing is not so much a matter to detecting and deterring criminal activities, but keeping the crime rate high enough so that taxpayers and voting citizens will demand more police support, but not so high as to cause the taxpayers and voting citizens to demand regime change.
In many cases, the top-level police are politicians, with the very same issues: raising campaign funding and avoiding negative publicity. To the extent that they support the politicians, community agitators, and the special interests who provide campaign funding, voter support, and positive media. Favors all around. To the extent that the rank-and-file are well-trained, diligent, and exhibit personal integrity, it to the extent that the leadership sets the example. And, to the extent that the community supports their actions.
Heaven forbid that law-abiding citizens act as individuals and become responsible for their own self-protection. Can’t have that as it would diminish the power of the politicians and police. No, we need to disarm the law-abiding and make them even more vulnerable to the criminal class. So they must turn to government for their security and safety. How else can you explain the stringent gun-control rules and regulations that don’t seem to be working in the inner cities, especially those governed by progressive socialist democrats and their “go soft on punishments” public policies. As if crime were a disease, to be treated humanely in the community, not harshly behind bars.
Obama’s poster boy for racial agitation and anti-police rhetoric …
If you were to select one person to typify the self-serving corruption and dishonesty of a racial agitator, you would be hard-pressed to find one as corrupt and dishonest as the so-called “Reverend”Al Sharpton.
Here is a man who has incited mob violence with his racial rhetoric. Here is a man who put forth big lies that were totally disproven. Here is a man who is little more than a racial extortionist – and he doesn’t even bother to pay taxes on his ill-gotten gains. So why is this man invited to the White House? Why is this man sitting next to New York’s Mayor and Police Chief?
The answer is simple. He is the progressive socialist democrat’s go-to man when it comes to agitating the minority base that overwhelmingly votes for the democrats, even though even a cursory glance at history will show that Blacks were misused by the democrats and then discarded after the election. With the good “reverends” and “ministers” paid off in “walking around money” and token access to the top politicians for their self-serving photo-ops.
Have you ever wondered why this race-baiting charlatan will go after American corporations and police departments, but will not engage in curbing inner city thuggery, out-of-wedlock births that doom mothers to a life of poverty, or those who bring the very worst of culture to the ‘hood? Beyond his personal safety, it all comes down to political power, prestige, and most of all, profits. You can make no money going after the root causes of decay and crime in the inner cities. You can make no money telling young men to be responsible and to support their families. And, you certainly don’t get media attention for denigrating the entertainment of thuggish hip-hop.
So why is this despicable man thought to be one of the preeminent leaders of the Black Community, as if Blacks were anything other than a monolithic voting block? Because he is a necessary evil to the progressive socialist democrats. To keep the base agitated about their victimhood based on the implicit racism and poverty that the progressive socialist democrats promised to resolve decades ago with their “war on poverty.” Ask yourself where did those billions of taxpayer’s dollars go – and the answer is invariably, programs to promote the progressive socialist democrat cause and to keep the dollars flowing to the special interests that kicked back campaign funding, voter support, and media attention.
Bottom line …
To the extent we are seeing policing problems along racial, ethnic, or religious lines, you may wish to thank President Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats for their efforts in balkanizing and promoting victimhood in order to gain and maintain political power. The chaos and criminality we are seeing is directly attributable to the progressive governance model where the politicians do not attack minorities or hold them accountable for their criminality, bad behavior, or other misdeeds lest they switch their party affiliation and back the opposition.
Truth be told, Blacks and Hispanic minorities have been screwed over by the democrats while their point elsewhere to explain the failures of their public policies.
Enough is enough. We need to remove or reduce corruption in politics – allowing the taxpayer’s funds to flow into the community without a detour through the politicians and their special interests' pockets.
-- steve